Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Proposed decision

Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

For this case, there are 14 active Arbitrators (excluding 2 who are recused), so 8 votes are a majority.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Proposed interim desysop of MZMcBride

1) The Arbitration Committee previously adopted an injunction passed on March 6, 2009, directing MZMcBride to refrain from using automated tools such as bots or scripts to delete pages while the case was pending. The purpose of this injunction was to allow time for the committee to address issues concerning MZMcBride's mass deletions of pages, which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy.

Since the injunction was adopted, MZMcBride has deleted hundreds of additional pages, sometimes at a rate of dozens of pages per minute. MZMcBride has explained several times that these deletions have been effectuated using tabbed browsing, rather than by a bot or script. However, many of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction.

So, pending a ruling in the MZMcBride case, MZMcBride's adminship is temporarily suspended.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. It is unreasonable to expect that actions indistinguishable from tool-assisted action in bulk and speed will be treated as distinct from tool-assisted actions, regardless of the explanation. --Vassyana (talk) 14:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. In my view not necessary, but I have proposed an extension of the temporary injunction, below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. All that is needed here, in my opinion, is to call a halt to all and any deletions by MZMcBride, and to get on with finishing the case. I will propose an injunction to that effect. Part of the delay in the case is due to me, as I had some questions to ask MZMcBride but hadn't asked them yet. Rather than contribute to further delays, I will ask the questions in parallel with the drafting and voting on the proposed decision. Carcharoth (talk) 00:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I'd have supported this motion but since the Proposed Decision is coming soon, I prefer to go for Newyorkbrad's injunction below. Otherwise, this motion would still be here if MZMcBride gets impatient again. This was the limit of the community and our patience. I hope the message gets through the ears of MZMcBride. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree that recent behavior warrants this, but I'm willing to give the extended injunction a chance given the proposed decision is coming shortly. — Coren ^(talk) 12:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. The extended injunction should be sufficient to prevent further problems until the proposed decision where desysop options may be considered. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Assuming good faith that the proposed decision will be up soon, so abstaining. Wizardman 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

MZMcBride directed to refrain from using automated tools

1) MZMcBride is directed to refrain from using automated tools (including bots and scripts) to delete pages or nominate them for deletion while this arbitration case is pending. This is a temporary injunction and does not reflect any predetermination on the outcome of any issue in the case. This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately.

Enacted on 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. — Roger Davies ^talk 17:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Risker (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I note with approval that MZMcBride has already stated he will not restart the IP-page script that led to his block of this morning, at this time. All parties should please also note that the second sentence of the proposed injunction is not boilerplate. All relevant evidence and statements will be considered in determining whether this issue should be the subject of the proposed decision in this case and if so, what the decision should provide. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support, with a request that this be considered passed as soon as possible (ignoring the usual 24h delay). — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I agree and, unless any arbitrator objects, have added that to the proposed injunction. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

7. --Vassyana (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 20:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Extension of injunction

2) The Arbitration Committee previously adopted an injunction passed on March 6, 2009, directing MZMcBride to refrain from using automated tools such as bots or scripts to delete pages while the case was pending. The purpose of this injunction was to allow time for the committee to address issues concerning MZMcBride's mass deletions of pages, which have been controversial and which some participants in this case have alleged violate policy.

Since the injunction was adopted, MZMcBride has deleted hundreds of additional pages, sometimes at a rate of dozens of pages per minute. MZMcBride has explained several times that these deletions have been effectuated using tabbed browsing, rather than by a bot or script. However, at least some of the concerns regarding the mass deletions remain the same as those covered by the injunction.

Accordingly, MZMcBride is directed to refrain from deleting pages while this case remains pending, with the exception of obvious attack, nonsense, or vandalism pages. There is no restriction against his proposing lists of pages to be deleted by other administrators, provided that the deleting administrator exercises his or her own judgment in determining that deletion is appropriate.

This temporary injunction shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect until the case is closed. It does not reflect any prejudgment of the merits of the case. The committee shall take reasonable steps to expedite the resolution of this case, thereby producing a final decision that will supersede this and the prior temporary injunction.

Enacted on 21:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Support:

1. Support as alternate to the temporary desysopping. I intend to propose a decision in this case on the workshop later today, to be discussed and then moved to proposed decision for voting within 24 to 48 hours thereafter. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support this since it needs fewer votes to pass. Continue to support the motion to temporarily suspend adminship pending resolution of the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. A bit wordy, but in essence it expands on what I proposed off-wiki earlier today. I see no reason to make any exceptions (there are enough other admins around to deal with attack/nonsense/vandalism pages), but in the interests of expediency, will support Brad's version here. I will post on the talk page the wording of what I originally proposed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, with the stern reminder to MZMcbride that attempts to circumvent this extension in any way would be viewed very dimly and would almost certainly lead to a swift desysop. — Coren ^(talk) 12:34, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Risker (talk) 13:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 14:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. No. If not violated injunction, has clearly edited in a manner mimicking thus. I cannot believe this was accidental. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I am not very keen on this for a broad variety of reasons. However, I not opposed to this measure. Thus, I am abstaining. --Vassyana (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators

1) Administrators are trusted members of the community. They should lead by example and behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with other editors. Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies and to perform their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes by administrators are understandable, but consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions.

Support:

1. The proposed principles are taken from the workshop. Comments from my colleagues and other editors there have been taken into account, and I have tried to do some copyediting and simplify some of the wordings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. "Administrators are expected to learn from experience and from justified criticisms of their actions." FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Being responsive to feedback is the mark of good administrative judgment. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Indeed. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Administrator communications

2) Administrators are required to explain their actions. The interface screen for administrator actions such as deletions offers a "reason" field to be used for this purpose, whose contents are logged. While all editors should reply promptly and civilly to good-faith queries about their edits or actions, administrators are particularly expected to do so. Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. It's important to note that whether the action is right is not material to the need for being transparent and responsive. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Deletion

3) The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes, though there are often disputes about the contents of policy, and it is not always clear when changing policy has crystallised sufficiently to be acted upon. The degree of flexibility warranted will be informed by the context. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Notification of deletion

4) Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. When the deletion is of a page in userspace, the affected editor may be particularly dismayed. Even though users do not "own" such pages, reasonable leeway is accorded to userspace content. Therefore, a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 10:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Leeway in the sense that, within the bounds of policy, contents and organisation and so forth is at the user's prerogative and is not a matter for community consensus. But only within the bounds of policy. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Personal expression in userspace

5) Editors are generally permitted to include in their userspace a limited amount of non-inflammatory personal expression not directly related to encyclopedic collaboration. Editors should use good judgment concerning the nature of this material. Administrators may delete inappropriate userspace pages, either speedily where the inappropriateness of the material is blatant, and otherwise through MfD. Before seeking to delete a userspace page, it will often be desirable for an administrator to contact the user and explain why the page is considered problematic; sometimes the user will agree to delete or revise the page and thereby resolve the issue. Editing of subpages in one's userspace (except for encyclopedic pages such as sandbox versions of articles or the like) generally should not be the primary focus of an editor's contributions to the site.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Communication with users is an important aspect of administrators' work when deleting especially if a single editor contributed most of the edits to the page. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC) The wording of PROD does indicate it is only for articles so I changed the wording of the proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. It should be noted that many users, in drafting and designing "unnecessary" userspace pages, learn many skills that are later put to good use in development and layout of content. Risker (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Noting here for the record that users can blank pages on request (providing the title or page content is not problematic), and that this can be less resource-intensive than deletion. In addition, the material is still there in the page history if needed, and this avoids contributions being split between the public contributions log and the log of a user's deleted contributions. In other words, deletion is not the only option, and it is not a binary decision between keep and delete. Carcharoth (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. The comments on #4 above are relevant to this principle also. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Bots and scripts

6) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also computer algorithms utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable for the purpose of facilitating the making of multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits. However, application of this policy to bots maintained by administrators has historically been unsettled.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, and no. That is, the question has been settled but compliance is lax and enforcement minimal to inexistent. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First preference. I'll note that both bots and scripts are used to summarize large batches of data into simple, usable information without making many edits (e.g., those that User:ST47 has created to summarize voting processes). Risker (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Upon reflection, this is an inaccurate portrayal of policy and the surrounding circumstances. --Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I dont like the last sentence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Approval is only required when someone wants to operate a bot on a separate account. The advantage to the operator, aside from the technical benefits afforded by the bot flag, is that they will not be personally responsible for mistakes or errors made by the bot, as to gain approval reasonable efforts will already have been made to eliminate bugs in the code, etc. Someone operating a bot or script on their own account is personally responsible for mistakes or errors. Much of the source of confusion with respect to administrators is that, given the sysop flag shares many of the same technical benefits as the bot flag, there is less incentive to operate on a separate account, so many admins operate scripts and bots on their own accounts. This is less of a problem when it is realised that it is simply the case that they are personally responsible for any mistakes or errors, and like any other editor, they are betting their editing privileges (and for bots or scripts using administrative tools, their sysop flag) on their confidence in having bug-free code. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   From Wikipedia:Bot policy: "Since bots: 1) are potentially capable of editing far faster than humans can; 2) have a lower level of scrutiny on each edit than a human editor; 3) may cause severe disruption if they malfunction or are misused; and 4) are held to a high standard by the community, high standards are expected before a bot is approved for use on designated tasks. Operation of unapproved bots, or use of approved bots in unapproved ways outside their conditions of operation, is prohibited and may in some cases lead to blocking of the bot account and possible sanctions for the operator." (Emphasis mine.) That reads to me as though policy requires approval for bots, regardless of what account is used. Risker (talk) 13:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Abstain for now. The last sentence could be interpreted to justify noncompliance with general terms and norms. It may still need a caveat; a "yes, but" qualification. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Per Faysssal. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Fayssal. The principle is not inaccurate as such, but the sentence "application of this policy to bots maintained by administrators has historically been unsettled" really needs a link, at least to a subsequent finding of fact, if not to a summary of this history. Indeed, this sentence really makes this more a finding than a principle. Will propose an alternative that splits this into two principles - one about bots and one about adminbots. Also "bots maintained by administrators" is inaccurate - the point is bots that use the administrator's tools. Admins can run bots (on a separate account), no problem, but it is getting a bot flag on their admin account, or an admin flag on their separate bot account, that has been the problem. Hence the "secret" use of bots on the admin accounts. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Bainer's comment noted - the qualifier "generally" should cover any unapproved bots, and it is the objections or not to the bot edits by other editors, not any technical approval by BAG, that really matters, in my opinon. Carcharoth (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Fayssal and Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots and scripts

6.1) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable to facilitate making multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits. The application of this policy to bots maintained by administrators has historically been controversial. WP:ADMINBOT was adopted to resolve the issue, but compliance has been sporadic and enforcement has been lax.

Support:

1. Per concerns and an attempt to be more accurate about the relation of administrator bots to the bot policy. --Vassyana (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second Choice — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice over 6; this more accurately reflects current reality. — Coren ^(talk) 20:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. Risker (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Change to third choice. Risker (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice over 6.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. The last sentence is helpful, but it would be better if there was fresh evidence submitted that Adminbots are not all sporting a bot flag. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman 20:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Aeq. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comments on #6. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. In the structure of the decision as originally written, the principles concerning adminbots, including the prior history of their questioned or unsettled status, were included in this principle, while more recent history was set forth in the "status of adminbots" proposed finding of fact, as the existence of a recent policy updating is a fact more than a principle (albeit, a fine line there, I acknowledge). I don't strongly object to adding a sentence or two concerning the more recent policy updating to the principle, but I would need to see some evidence for the statement that compliance has been sporadic; I don't really know how many admins, other than MZMcBride, have failed to seek approval for currently used bots on their admin accounts (either because they disagree with the approval requirement or because they don't yet realize it exists). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comment on principle 6. Carcharoth (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bots, scripts and adminbots

6.2) Bots are processes that modify Wikipedia content in a fully or partially automated fashion. Scripts are also utilized to automate or semi-automate certain types of editing. These tools are extremely valuable to facilitate making multiple edits that would be unduly time-consuming or tedious for a human editor to perform manually. Approval from the Bot Approvals Group is generally required before an editor may use a bot for automatic or high-speed edits. Adminbots are bots used to carry out administrator actions. They are currently approved using the process described at "Bots with administrative rights" (bot policy subsection).

Support:

1. Proposed in lieu of 6 and 6.1. No need to do more than define adminbots and the approval process here. History and details (which is complex) can go in the findings of facts. Like Brad, I'm not quite sure where the line is crossed, when describing the background to something, between a principle (which should come from a policy) and a finding of fact (on the history of the dispute, as opposed to facts about the current dispute). Carcharoth (talk) 10:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. --Vassyana (talk) 22:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wizardman 20:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. No preference with 6.1. — Coren ^(talk) 00:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. per Carch. undecided which is better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice, because it is worth noting that WP:ADMINBOT was not in practice universally accepted until recently. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Could be addressed by adding a date. Indeed, all the versions could explicitly note the date WP:ADMINBOT became policy. I think it went live around the date of this edit (30 September 2008). The reason I didn't go into the history here is because this is a principle, not a finding of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Second choice. Risker (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per comments on #6. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Responsibility of bot operators

7) Like other holders of special access or privileges, bot operators and script users have a heightened responsibility to the community. They are expected to respond promptly and reasonably to questions or concerns about the operation of their bots, and to be available to do so promptly when the bot or script is editing. An editor who (even in good faith) misuses automated editing tools such as bots and scripts, or fails to respond appropriately to concerns from the community about their use over a period of time, may lose the privilege of using such tools or may have this privilege restricted.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 11:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Biographies of living persons

8) Substantially improving the level of compliance with our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) remains the most urgent ethical issue facing Wikipedia. Efforts to enhance and ensure compliance with the BLP policy are commendable, even though editors may disagree in good faith about the best means of doing so.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. "It is an ethical issue", to misquote The Times, because BLP violations can do real and significant harm to people. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. I concur with the sentiment and deep concern, but I cannot endorse this as written. Calling it the "most urgent ethical issue facing Wikipedia" without qualification has the feel of a moral panic. Additionally, the BLP situation is not alone among the many deep ethical issues Wikipedia faces and holding it up as the hands-down "most urgent" is extremely subjective. We can impart the seriousness of the situation without such hand-wringing. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Vassyana. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Vassyana. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Vassyana, leaning towards oppose. This suggests that contributors who work on the BLP coal face are better than those who work in other areas, and will recieve special consideration for their behaviour as a result. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

8.1) Improving compliance with our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) is a significant and pressing issue. Efforts to enhance and ensure BLP compliance are commendable and encouraged, even though editors may disagree in good faith about the best means of doing so.

Support:

1. Proposed alternative to address my concerns about tone and phrasing, with other minor tweaks. --Vassyana (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice, prefer 8, which I think is more directly apposite to the facts of this case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equally with 8. The emphasis is different, but both findings are accurate as stated. — Coren ^(talk) 13:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Second choice. Prefer 8 as I want to go on the record to say that BLP concerns are an ethical issue that needs to be urgently addressed for Wikipedia to be a reputable reference work. But this is accurate and does address the BLP issue so I will support as possible alternative. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose since I support other options. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Second choice. I prefer 8 as it addresses the ethical concerns. much per FloNight.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice (for now). An alternative wording saying "one of the most urgent", instead of "the most urgent" might get everyone supporting this. Am uncertain whether to use Vassyana's wording or Brad's, but adding "one of the most significant and pressing issues" or "one of the most urgent ethical issues" would get my support. Cannot support wording that says this is the single most urgent issue, without some indication of what the other issues are that are less urgent. Carcharoth (talk) 11:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Now second choice of two supported, but still chosen ahead of principle 8 (unlike those who may have principle 8 as their first choice and this as their second choice). Carcharoth (talk) 17:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. slightly prefer this over 8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. First choice. This is simpler and effective. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Second choice, equal preference with #8.2. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Prefer other options. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:47, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Strongly prefer 8. Wizardman 06:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Wizardman. Ethical issues do not necessarily need explicit qualifications. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies of living persons

8.2) Improving compliance with our policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) is one of the most significant and pressing ethical concerns facing Wikipedia. Efforts to enhance and ensure BLP compliance are commendable and encouraged, even though editors may disagree in good faith about the best means of doing so.

Support:

1. Proposed alternative. --Vassyana (talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. Carcharoth (talk) 17:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice with 8. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think all three wordings are equally adequate; placing emphasis in different places but not affecting the significance profoundly. — Coren ^(talk) 00:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal preference to 8. Wizardman 02:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Equal preference to 8.1 - Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal preference to 8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Equal preference to 8. Risker (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice, equal preference with #8.1. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

9) The Arbitration Committee does not directly resolve content disputes, whether dealing with the content of articles or of other pages in the project, nor issues of policy, such as whether and under what circumstances administrators may use bots on their administrator accounts, or whether "secret" or "hidden" pages in userspace should be permitted.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. I agree with Coren but I don't see the need to oppose or abstain. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per FayssalF. Equal preference with 9.1. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We do not, but the community already has, to wit: WP:BOT. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   You may probably need a separate principle for that. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I think a variation of our standard disclaimer principle about good faith content disputes would better serve the purpose. A rephrasing that clearly explains the intent that we do not impose solutions on unresolved content and policy questions would also suffice. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Fayssal and Vassyana  Roger Davies ^talk 09:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Too specific. Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. See my comments at #9.1 below. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

9.1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content and policy disputes among editors.

Support:

1. Proposed. Variation of standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice, Naturally — Rlevse • Talk • 20:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pretty much by definition. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Equal preference with 9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal preference with 9. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman :  Chat  02:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal preference with 9. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:42, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice since this one covers all Wikipedia good-faith content and policy disputes —not limited to particularities or extended to extra details wich could be interpreted in different ways leading to clarifications and such. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Carcharoth (talk) 11:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC) Moving to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I know what this intends to say, but it raises a number of definitional issues. If the "good-faith" proviso is understood to mean that the situation involves no dispute amenable to dispute resolution, then yes, it is not our role to intervene. However, it is very much our role to, in the context of dispute resolution, interpret and apply policy in a manner binding on the dispute (though not binding in other situations). Assessing whether consensus exists for some piece of policy may also within our role, depending on the context. Of course, how one defines "policy disputes" then becomes critical. On balance I would rather leave this out. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per bainer. Subtle points being missed here. Better left out. Carcharoth (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Role of the Arbitration Committee

9.2) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content and policy disputes among editors. Similarly, the Committee will not impose solutions for unsettled questions of policy. For example, the proper use of administrator bots and the propriety of "hidden", or "secret", userspace pages are policy matters for the community to determine.

Support:

1. Proposed. Expanded alternative to 9.1. --Vassyana (talk) 19:30, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal preference with 9 and 9.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice as with 9. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Equal first preference with 9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't think the examples are germane to a principle, and they could be read to have more meaning than warranted. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Disagree, the Committee may make rulings based on usual practices that would not qualify as "settled" questions of policy. Risker (talk) 00:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wizardman :  Chat  02:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. We do impose solutions for unsettled questions of policy. Sometimes we assist the Community toward resolving a conflict due to unresolved policy questions, and then determine that the Community solution should stick. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Wizardman and FloNight.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Flo — Rlevse • Talk • 03:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. No need for examples. This is a general principle. Carcharoth (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. per Risker. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per my comments on #9.1, and per Flo. --bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Sanctions and circumstances

10) In deciding what sanctions to impose against an administrator or other editor, the Arbitration Committee will consider the editor's overall record of participation, behavioral history, and other relevant circumstances. An editor's positive and valuable contributions in one aspect of his or her participation on Wikipedia do not excuse misbehavior or questionable judgment in another aspect of participation, but may be considered in determining the sanction to be imposed.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. This principle is the reason that I asked you to add the Fof about the Palin case. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Context is everything, but good contributions are not an excuse for bad behavior. --Vassyana (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yup, past good work is important mitigation but not a "get out of jail" card.  Roger Davies ^talk
10. Risker (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Carcharoth (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. The question is always whether the means will assist the end of preventing recurrences of the particular behaviour, and these factors help in making that assessment. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Return of access levels

11) Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy. Users who give up privileges under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels (such as a Request for adminship) to regain them. Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats. However, an administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee decides otherwise, for purposes of applying this rule.

Support:

1. Proposed in light of changed circumstances. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Philwelch#Return of access levels; this slightly tweaked version is from the pending proposed decision in the Scientology case. See also proposed remedy 1.4, below. I will comment on some of the other revisions to proposed findings later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Standard principle. --Vassyana (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Standard operating procedure. — Coren ^(talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:52, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Naturally. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Wizardman 21:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Carcharoth (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. bainer (talk) 14:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride

1) MZMcBride has edited Wikipedia since May 2005 and has been an administrator since May 2007. He has made more than 50,000 edits, has taken more than 800,000 administrator actions, and has shown a high level of dedication to the project. His administrator work has, among other aspects, focused on the use of automated tools, such as bots and scripts, to identify categories of pages that he believes require administrator action, such as deletion or unprotection.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Though I fail to see the need for this finding. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Also agree with Carcharoth's links. Alternate edit/admin action counter using Soxred93's tool (note:will take about 3 minutes to load due to high level of editor/admin activity). Risker (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Suggested supporting links: MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA); Account created 31st May 2005; Admin flag granted 13 May 2007 following this RFA. To support the numbers given here, and to link to further details, I suggest adding this link for the deletions. For the "more than 50,000 edits", the best link I can find is this. Suggest that a snapshot of the user contributions and admin stats at some point during the case is taken and deposited on the evidence page. Some of these links may, of course, be excessive, but providing them here so that some of the links at least can be added. Dragons flight's evidence was, for me, very helpful and I think it should be noted in a finding of fact. Carcharoth (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree with Carcharoth's links. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Also agree with Carcharoth's links. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride's prior arbitration case

1.1) In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, MZMcBride was formally admonished by this Committee and was directed to refrain from any "further incidents of wheel-warring, taking administrator actions in disregard of on-wiki consensus, or deliberately disobeying decisions of the Arbitration Committee."

Support:

1. I think it helps to give us some background to this case. Wizardman 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. agreed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Disregard for consensus is difficult to reconcile with the role of an administrator. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. The weight of points raised by various of my colleagues below convinces me to go along with the consensus that this is worth at least a mention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Would prefer link direct to the admonishment, as in this link. It is annoying that when a section is at (or near) the bottom of a page, links to it don't work that well. Carcharoth (talk) 12:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree with Carcharoth. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As I remarked in my vote on case acceptance, I don't think any of the conduct discussed in the request (and indeed, that has been discussed subsequently during the case) enlivens the admonishment. I think mentioning it for context alone is arguably outweighed by the confusion it might produce as to the rationale of our ultimate decision. Flo's point below, however, about other relevant elements in that case (remedy 1, "parties instructed", and principles 3 and 5, "ignore all rules" and "consensus") is extremely well made, and is directly on point, and I would support a finding reiterating that. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Submitted for consideration, by request. A prior admonition is significant in evaluating an administrator's overall record, but I don't think that the conduct at issue in this case violated any of the specific prongs of the admonition. If adopted, this would be in addition to 1, not instead of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC) Changed to support per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promptly adding it. In the Palin case, we instructed the parties to carefully read the full case and take the principles on board. IAR, and Consensus guide an administrator to be more responsive to the Community and participate in on site discussions as a way to resolve issues. Embracing these ideas are key to be avoiding conflicts with other users when using admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion of "secret pages"

2) On February 23 and 24, 2009, MZMcBride deleted a total of more than 250 userspace pages from the userspaces of more than 100 editors. He located the pages by using a script to find userspace pages with names including the word "secret", and then he deleted the pages. His intention was to delete "secret" or "hidden" pages used for what he perceived as frivolous or "social" purposes (for example, "find my secret page and win a barnstar" types of pages).

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. An unverified list is at the AN thread here. It is disappointing that this list was not entered into evidence. I would link to the relevant section of MZMcBride's deletion logs, but am having trouble locating the deletions in question among all the others done on those two days. It should also be noted that many of those pages have been recreated or undeleted. Carcharoth (talk) 12:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Based on evidence that I have submitted due partly to shared concerns with Carcharoth that this FoF lacked evidence, my count is 250 pages (one being an author request) + 33 redirects to those pages. A quick scan also indicates this task dug into more than 100 userspaces. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Lack of communication regarding the deletions

3) MZMcBride did not notify or warn the editors with "secret pages" before he deleted them, nor did he place notices on the editors' talkpages when he deleted the pages. As a result, many of the editors first learned of the deletions when they noticed that pages had become redlinks, or went to work on pages only to discover that they were no longer there. Several of the affected editors who objected to the deletion of their pages were especially upset that they had not been notified in advance or given an opportunity to defend their pages before they were deleted.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC) (Minor grammar fix made to first sentence.)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC) (I've changed singular to plural – i.e. the page > pages, a redlink > redlinks – for consistency.)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Presumably the objections referred to are those at the AN thread, later ones such as this one and the evidence provided in the filing statement in this case (the editor who filed the case has not so far presented any further evidence). There may also be objections in other places, such as MZMcBride's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Even at this late stage, it would be useful if someone could add evidence to support affected editors objecting and the reasons given. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    My impression is actually that a fair number of editors "objected" by requesting restoration (or even recreating, though I don't know if that actually happened), but that some editors also requested deletion of these pages even after they had been restored (i.e. they had either forgotten about them, or didn't want to keep them any more). I think it would be fair to say the reaction to the deletions by the editors whose userspaces were affected, was "mixed". Carcharoth (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

14. bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less." While this wording was well-intentioned and not meant to offend, it upset some of the editors whose pages were deleted. Moreover, the implied assumption that all or most of the users hosting "secret pages" were spending an undue proportion of their wiki-time on non-encyclopedic activities, while understandable, appears inaccurate. See User:Cool Hand Luke/Secret page.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wizardman 18:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. I think we make educated guesses about the intentions and motives of editors routinely, and it is as well to be upfront about what they are. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not sure this is even accurate. It's still not clear to me what the motivation is for using lolspeak (internet slang) language anywhere. The consistent answer I've seen from MZMcBride is "because I felt it was in-line with the lighthearted nature of the pages" and "deleting the pages with playful deletion summaries keeps in-line with the playful nature of the pages". I think we should just say that, and not interpret that as "well-intentioned and not meant to offend". Carcharoth (talk) 12:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Carcharoth. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not completely comfortable with the wording. "While this wording well-intentioned and not meant to offend," as usual, I prefer not to ascribe intentions or motives in a proposal. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per FloNight. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per FloNight. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per FloNight.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per FloNight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4.1) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less" (example), which upset some of the editors whose pages were deleted. Moreover, the implied assumption that all or most of the users hosting "secret pages" were spending an undue proportion of their wiki-time on non-encyclopedic activities, while understandable, appears inaccurate. (See: User:Cool Hand Luke/Secret page.)

Support:

:# Proposed alternative per FloNight's concerns. --Vassyana (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Okay. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice over 4; more accurate. — Coren ^(talk) 20:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. First choice over 4; more accurate. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:56, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice, but acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:56, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wizardman 00:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second Third choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Equal preference with #4.3 and #4.4. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I think two issues are being conflated here. (1) The use of lolspeak (internet slang) language in deletion summaries and the motivation and intention behind using that language; and (2) The deletion summary stating that the editors in question were spending too much time on secret pages. The former can be addressed by deprecating the use of lolcat language in deletion summaries (and indeed in any formal admin communications), and the latter can be addressed by noting the number of contributions by the editor, as done at User:MiszaBot/PSP. However, the finding of fact here presumes that MZMcBride was deleting based on number of contributions by the editors. I don't think MZMcBride did make this assumption. He stated quite clearly at the AN thread that he was deleting all the pages regardless of how many contributions the editors had.

   Eh, this is a bit complicated. I appreciate the VestedContributor argument, however, there's also something to be said for applying the rules fairly to everyone. If we say it's not appropriate to have a "secret" or "hidden" page (and really, they obviously weren't too secret if it took ten seconds for me to find them), then it's important that we apply to rule to everyone. Otherwise we quickly run into issues of, "well, I have 50 article edits, can I have a secret page now?" and things like that. And the continued presence of these (and the related barnstars used as reward) only serves to spread this activity even further. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

   Based on that, I think this finding of fact is making incorrect statements about what MZMcBride assumed, though it would be correct to say that he used a blanket deletion reason without taking into account the differing editing histories of the editors concerned (whether that was good or not depends on the circumstances). More clarity is needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. The implied assumption of the lolcat deletion summary is that people should search for secret pages less, and doesnt suggest that the person hosting isnt doing enough encyclopedic work. At worst it says something to the effect that the creator/hoster has set up a page which, when combined with many other similar secret pages, enables MYSPACE-like contributors. I hope it is clear that this was a manual task performed by MZMcBride, and I am sure that he realised that Editorofthewiki was a profilic editor when he deleted User:Editorofthewiki/Secret and User:Editorofthewiki/Secret/Real. He has made it clear that he was not being a respector of persons. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Per Carcharoth's legitimate concerns. Proposing alternative. --Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4.2) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less" (example). The deletion summary was uniformly used for the deletion of "secret pages", regardless of the affected editor's contribution history.

Support:

1. "Plain" revision. --Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Third choice. Carcharoth (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is closer to the facts. He also used "made extra secret" (~21 instances) and "nonsense" (~13 instances) as a deletion summary, one "CSD G6" and one "CSD G7" for User namespace deletions. He used a wide array of justifications for User_talk namespace deletions; I havent looked at the appropriateness of those deleted under CSD criteria. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. too plain. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. This remains correct, but has been washed to the point of not being worth a finding. — Coren ^(talk) 00:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose per Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Coren. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Coren.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Plain, but overly so. Wizardman 02:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Wizardman & Coren. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4.3) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less" (example). The use of internet slang and the perceived implication that the affected users are spending an undue proportion of their wiki-time on non-encyclopedic activities led to some editors taking offense and considering the entry inappropriate, while some editors have described the summary as purposefully humorous and not of concern.[1][2] The deletion summary was uniformly used for the deletion of "secret pages", regardless of the affected editor's contribution history.

Support:

1. Revision with reactions about the edit summary. --Vassyana (talk) 22:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. Maybe add at end "which varied, as shown here", with link to CHL's subpage - which should really be entered into evidence. Could also say "MZMcBride has stated the edit summaries were intended to be playful", though that might be oversimplifying the reasons why he used the language he did. He has also said he was copying an edit summary style used before. See his answers to the questions, and see my discussion with Misza on the proposed decision talk page. East718 used a similar edit summary 42 times in May 2008. Will propose an 'inflated' version with all this background. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Third choice. This still implies that the edit summary was suggesting that the hosting user wasnt doing enough encyclopedic activity. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Equal preference with #4.1 and #4.4. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Prefer 4.1. I think we should discourage admin from using summaries the cause an overly strong reaction because of the wording. This proposal's wording does not highlight the aspect of the situation that needs to be remedied as well as 4.1. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Minor difference from the original — Rlevse • Talk • 00:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think 4.1 does the job. — Coren ^(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Coren. Wizardman 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Rlevse.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion summaries

4.4) MZMcBride's deletion summary for many of these deletions was "o hai, i haz found ur sekrit page! please contribute to the encyclopedia more and search for hidden pages less" (example). This wording combines lolspeak and an implied rebuke for creating such pages. MZMcBride has stated that the use of such deletion summaries was "playful" and "light-hearted" and that the wording came from a "deletion summary used by someone else long ago". Prior to the use of such deletion summaries by MZMcBride in January and February 2009 (192 times), similar deletions summaries were provided as links in this tracker page (first created in May 2008), and identical edit summaries were used by another admin in May 2008 (42 times, example). Database queries have found no examples of such deletion summaries for userspace pages prior to May 2008, and only one other time after May 2008. The use of internet slang and the perceived implication that the affected users are spending an undue proportion of their wiki-time on non-encyclopedic activities led to some editors taking offense and considering the deletion summaries inappropriate (see here) while some editors have described the summaries as purposefully humorous and not of concern (see here). The deletion summary was uniformly used for the deletion of "secret pages", regardless of the affected editor's contribution history, which varied as shown here. MZMcBride has stated that the pages were uniformly deleted in order to "[apply] the rules fairly to everyone" and "ensure fair treatment".

Support:

1. First choice (as proposer). May be a bit wordy, but this has all the background, I think. Could be split in two if needed. Really, there needs to be an accompanying principle that deletion summaries should be used to explain the reason for deleting a page, not for delivering rebukes. Any warnings or rebukes needed should go on the talk page of the editor concerned. If you wouldn't say it on someone's talk page, don't say it in a deletion summary. In practice, though, edit summaries and deletion summaries are often used for this purpose, so I don't intend to propose such a principle. A principle stating that humour and sarcasm and irony are difficult to communicate in a written, online medium (and thus should be avoided in formal, logged statements), wouldn't go amiss, though. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Third choice. Wizardman 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. This summarises what happened well. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Detailed, accurate summary. Perhaps a bit long, but solid. --Vassyana (talk) 06:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Equal preference with #4.1 and #4.3. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I don't see this level of detail as necessary, or useful, and they detract from the point. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Coren. I don't think someone that didn't know the background of the incident will understand the matter any better by this wording, rather this level of detail makes the proposal harder to comprehend. and detracts from the point of the Fof. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I disagree with the use of the word "uniformly", as it implies that the lolcat edit summary was used on all of the userpage deletions; this does not agree with the evidence. I feel multiple issues are being conflated into this proposed FoF. Risker (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Possibly a little overdetailed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Casliber.  Roger Davies ^talk 06:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status of "secret" or "hidden" pages

5) "Secret" or "hidden" user pages do not fall clearly within any of the criteria for speedy deletion. Despite some extensive community discussions, there is no policy or precedent clearly establishing whether such pages are an acceptable use of userspace. Reasonable arguments can be made on both sides of this question. See User:Bahamut0013/Secret pages for one summary of the competing arguments.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Some amount of community spirit is important in a volunteer organization; this encourages further participation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Was warned in Palin case that WP:IAR was not an appropriate way to push forward controversial decisions which this matter was sure to be. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In full agreement with FloNight. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with Flo and Cas. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Some examples of community discussions (some of which are not mentioned at the user page quoted), in no particular order, and found by a simple search, are: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and of course 6 (mentioned below). Carcharoth (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. And some MfDs. 1, 2 John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. The April 2008 mass MfD resulted in something of a compromise consensus that secret pages should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. But (as far as I am aware) all such case-by-case approaches following that mass MfD resulted in the pages being deleted (eg, 1, 2). The experience is much the same for other forms of Myspacery. At what point does consensus evidenced in consistent action produce policy? If not policy, when does it at least produce scope for boldness? --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is a good point. However, those MfDs were in August 2008. At the least, MZMcBride should have assembled his case at the AN thread, or done a test MfD. He in fact did file an MfD, but not until after he had started the deletions and been requested to undelete the page in question. As far as I'm aware, at the AN thread, he only made a reference to "past MfDs" (without any links) and then commenced finding and deleting the pages. Being bold doesn't absolve the person being bold from a clear and cogent explanation. Carcharoth (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Justification for the deletions

6) In making and defending these deletions, MZMcBride relied on an MfD discussion in April 2008, whose scope and applicability to the recent deletions is disputed, as well as language drawn from the policy Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. MZMcBride has explained his reasons for deleting these pages on the workshop page and we accept that the deletions were made in the belief that they benefitted the project. However, even while MZMcBride was still deleting pages, a thread was opened on the administrators' noticeboard in which many editors objected to the deletions and the way they were being made. At least as of that time, MZMcBride should have stopped deleting these pages until a consensus was reached.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Indeed. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. That's an understatement. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Timeline and narrative is unclear or incomplete here. I've read through the AN thread, and the deletions by MZMcBride seem to have started in response to the thread. Thread was opened 22:03, 21 February 2009. MZMcbride stated at 05:21, 22 February 2009 that "Past MfDs have fairly clear established that these "hidden" or "secret" pages are not acceptable. When I come across them, I delete them." Deletions took place on 23 and 24 February 2009. Subsection of the thread started here at 14:16, 23 February 2009 focused on MZMcBride and the deletions that had started (actually, it was started as a separate thread and then merged with the existing one). MZMcBride was notified and responded at 16:49, 23 February 2009 with his "Eh, this is a bit complicated" comment. He then debated the merits of the deletions at the AN thread (were deletions ongoing while he did this?) a few hours later on 23 February 2009. It was then noted at the AN thread, early in the morning (UTC) of 24 February that the deletions were still going on, and MZMcBride responded at 02:26 with "All finished now. As I said earlier, fair treatment seems best here.". Suggest finding of fact is reworded to make clear that MZMcBride was aware of the AN thread before commencing deletions (and mentioned "past MfDs" there, while not being specific), that he then responded at the AN thread after he was notified of the new subsection, but continued deletions for the reason he gave. Carcharoth (talk) 14:27, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I'm considering the objection by Carcharoth. For my own part, I am concerned about the last sentence ("MZMcBride should have stopped deleting these pages until a consensus was reached"), which I think needs a principle to support it, as the AN thread has opinions from both sides, and it is common for admin tasks to stay in progress unless there is developing consensus that they should stop. At what point should the contributor decide that a) they need to monitor the AN thread, and b) halt the relevant task to wait for a conclusion. If he was asked on his talk page to pause, and continued anyway, that would be a more direct rationale that he should have stopped. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Still considering this. Noting that some of the editors questioning the merits of deletion early on in the discussion seem to have been concerned that deletion was a waste of time rather than being wrong. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Corrected the link to the workshop. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to complaints about the deletions

7) Several editors whose pages had been deleted posted to MZMcBride's talkpage. Some protested the deletions, while others asked the reasons for them or expressed concern about potential loss of the data on the pages. At first, MZMcBride's responses to some of the queries from the editors who hosted "secret pages" were cursory, although his responses to other editors was more detailed. However, MZMcBride agreed to provide any affected editor with an e-mailed copy of his or her deleted page(s) to avoid data loss. He also agreed to reinstate any of the deleted pages upon request by the affected editor, although he added that he would thereupon nominate the page for deletion on MfD.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:29, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:33, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. I think the links in question are those provided by MZMcBride in his original statement here. The diffs and links in question may be these ones: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. Would be happier if the entire history of MZMcBride's talk page in the period in question was summarised on the evidence page to see if this is representative of the number and type of comments made. Carcharoth (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Status of adminbots

8) The status of bots run by administrators on their primary accounts, particularly bots capable of administrator actions such as deletion or protection/unprotection, was controversial for several years. For a time, formal policy was that such bots were impermissible, although it had become clear that several well-respected administrators were running "adminbots" as "open secrets" and that some of these bots were doing important work for the project. In September 2008, this Committee declined a request for arbitration on this subject, in which MZMcBride was named as a party. Several arbitrators observed at that time that whether and when to permit adminbots was a policy matter that should be addressed by the bot approvals group (BAG) and the community as a whole. Subsequent community discussion led to the addition of a "Bots with administrative rights" section to the bot policy, which regularized the status of such bots. Administrators running previously unapproved adminbots were requested to submit requests for BAG approval of their bots within two months.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. It should be noted that no provision for grandfathering existing bots were given. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Noting he refused to do so. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Sounds about right. Some of the links needed are: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Adminbots; the list of known adminbots at the time (or adminbot-type behaviour) on the talk page; the rejected RFAR. Links I don't have to hand include a link to the community discussion of the new Adminbot policy, and a clear diff for the statement that for a time "formal policy was that such bots were impermissible". Finally, to give the context for the "within two months" bit, the date that the new section became policy needs to be stated. Carcharoth (talk) 17:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Found the last rounds of discussion: 1, 2, 3 (though there was earlier discussion somewhere). The proposed tag was removed on 30 September 2008, so within two months of that would have been 30 November 2008. Carcharoth (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. As there are many admins running admin tasks on their admin account, similar to MZMcBride, "was controversial for several years" avoids the obvious fact that this is still controversial. While it is clear that MZMcBride was aware of the Adminbots RFC, and likely that he was aware of the adjustment to the bot policy, there is no evidence submitted that he and others were asked to comply and refused. Rlevse has said above that he refused, and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Workshop#Ignoring Wikipedia:Bot policy also says that "Despite being urged to do so, MZMcBride has declined to get approval for an adminbot to do the automated deletions." - can someone please submit evidence to support this, so that it can be evaluated? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Again, the approval policy deals with running separate accounts. Users running bots or scripts on their own account are personally responsible for mistakes or errors. See my comments above on the relevant proposed principles. --bainer (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride's adminbots

9) MZMcBride has repeatedly acknowledged that prior to this arbitration case, he regularly ran bots and scripts on his administrator account. He has stated his view that these bots perform important maintenance tasks for the project. A few users have questioned whether some of these tasks are in fact beneficial. MZMcBride has declined to request BAG approval for his bots. He has detailed his reasons for not doing so on the workshop; in substance, he suggests that any such requirement is unnecessary and overly bureaucratic. However, discussion of the value and nature of tasks to be assigned to a bot may be especially valuable where, as here, there has been disagreement regarding whether some of the tasks are desirable or what the parameters of the tasks (e.g., deletions) should be.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Though refusal to get BAG approval shows disdain for community consensus, which is not a trait good for admins to hold. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree with Rlevse. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. For the record, the questions to MZMcBride and his replies are here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. These are all accurate statements of fact. The consequences to be drawn from them, of course, will depend on one's understanding of the bot policy. As John suggests below, "has not requested" might be more accurate than "has declined to request", but that is only a minor point. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. still considering, due to my opposition to 8. Much of this is accurate and doesnt depend on the evidence that he did decline, so I wont oppose at this stage. I would like to see evidence of MZMcBride, and other bot operators, declining to take their adminbots through BAG. Also I am concerned that "unnecessary and overly bureaucratic" is putting words in MZMcBride's mouth, without evidence which may indicate when he held that opinion, as WP:ADMINBOT is a developing standard and his views may be changing over time if he sees other adminbots being approved. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Seems supported by MZMcBride's answer to the questions, which I linked above, and what Brad said: "He has detailed his reasons for not doing so on the workshop". Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-segregation of logs

9.1) Because MZMcBride has run automated, semi-automated and manual tasks affecting a very large number of pages, the logs of his account contain tens of thousands of such actions making it difficult or impossible for most other editors to verify the accuracy or propriety of those actions.

Support:

1. — Coren ^(talk) 20:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
   • I've tweaked the wording to state most other editors. My point being that if only people with access to tools can analyze the edits or deletions, then the transparency of those actions is significantly impaired. — Coren ^(talk) 14:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Logs should be separate in the future, as with separate accounts. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes, wiki communal work is based on the ability to monitor contributions of users. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support new proposal. Title changed from "segregation of logs" to "non-segregation" to match content. Proposal moved from 13 to 9.1 for logical flow within the decision. If adopted, this is in addition to 9, not instead of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 23:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Most other editors (i.e., the 95% of us who do not script and who use tools sparingly) would find it difficult at minimum to parse MZMcBride's logs. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. One summary of the deletions is here. MZMcBride also provided some stats in the questions he answered here. I believe John (Jayvdb) is also providing some evidence on MZMcBride's use of a sandbox to segregate his deletions. Regardless of this, I agree with Risker, and in general would note that if someone wants to centralise their tasks on one account, the onus is on them to set up a structure that makes their deletions as obvious and transparent as possible. An example is the documentation at User:BHGbot - I'm sure other bots that are good examples of clear and accessible organisation can be found. Carcharoth (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do agree with segregation of logs being a desirable principle, however it is not "impossible" for other editors to review his actions. This was raised at User_talk:MZMcBride/Archive_13#Your_deletion_log, where Marybelle provided a tool to remove the spammy entries (User:MZMcBride/hideentries.js) and produced a list of the spammy entries at User:MZMcBride/Sandbox_4. At the very least, "or impossible" needs to be removed. Also, given that he assisted people wishing to verify his actions, it wasnt even "difficult" to do so. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The point is that it is not possible for "most editors" to do it. The need to use a special tool does not speak to what an regular editor can do. Maybe we can change the wording to "most editors". FloNight♥♥♥ 12:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   While most editors may find it difficult to do it, this is often the case of contribution analysis. Typically someone posts to ANI when they see a potential problem, and the analysis task is divided between many hands, each doing as much as their skills permit. The same can be said of users who perform repetitive administrative functions using Twinkle, doing many hundreds of actions per day, while also editing/administrating in more thoughtful manner in another window. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. An accurate assessment, but I don't support the implications it carries with it. It is true that it is difficult to assess such a large volume of actions, but one that applies equally to any editor making a large number of edits or administrator taking a large number of administrative actions. It's incumbent on editors to provide adequate edit summaries, and on admins to provide adequate action summaries, but not to curtail the volume of edits or actions they make. Segregation of tasks onto multiple accounts (a different issue from volume; the volume would be the same whether tasks are segregated or not) would seem to be desirable, as John says, but I'm not sure it's a settled enough principle that we can (implicitly) make findings based on it. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The combination of being bold when using admin tools and making a large number of closely related repetitive admin actions do not mix. In other ArbCom cases we've said that an user should not push though his ideas by outpacing the efforts of other users to respond. This idea is especially true if it is an admin action since non-admin can not reverse it, and we caution admin not to reverse another admin unless they are sure that it is clearly correct to reverse it. For that reason, I think it is the admins responsibility to work with the community to develop ways to make it easier to monitor their use of the tool or other automated edits. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. John, what you are talking about is still difficult (if not very difficult) for most Wikipedia users but yes, that is not 'impossible' of course. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree to a point (somewhat) with John. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per John's reservations. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per John.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:46, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion of redirects

9.2) MZMcBride has repeatedly deleted redirects against consensus.

Support:

1. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I add that MZMcBride's handling of the dispute was especially poor. It is the responsibility of a bot operator to stop acting as soon as the bot's code is acting against consensus so as to not create a mess for others to clean up. — Coren ^(talk) 00:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support. I reread the discussion about the June 2008 deletions of redirects. The June 2008 reaction was strong from the Community because there was prior disagreement and concern expressed about MZMcBride doing large volume deletion runs including re-directs without prior discussion. And that his response to the complaints were less than ideal. For that reason, I think the wording of this proposal is not wrong, although I would not be opposed to alternative wording if someone wants to suggest something else that concisely explains the situation. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. The only diff being from June 2008 is a little iffy to me, but the FoF and diff show it pretty clearly. Wizardman :  Chat  17:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Carcharoth (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Switch to oppose in favour of alternative. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Not enough context. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I agree that MZMcBride acted in this matter without consensus, but that is not the same thing as acting against consensus. // As a housekeeping matter, I've moved this proposal from 14 to 9.2 for the logical flow of the decision; if adopted, this is in addition to 9 and 9.1, not an alternative to either. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that you could go as far as to say that he was acting against consensus to do a massive number of deletions including re-directs unless he had prior approval. Evidently, he was aware that a number of people did not think that his approach was in keeping with the emerging Community opinion about how admin should do repetitive admin actions. He seemed unwilling to let people know ahead of time so that misunderstanding by him or others could be addressed before the actions were done. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I could readily support a more nuanced version of the finding. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. I need to think further on this one; as Newyorkbrad indicates, a more nuanced version of this finding may be useful. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per NYB and Risker.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per NYB. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's deletion of redirects

9.2.1) MZMcBride has repeatedly deleted redirects without consensus. There was previous disagreement and concern expressed about MZMcBride doing large volume deletion runs, including re-directs, without prior discussion. MZMcBride was apparently aware of these concerns that his approach was not in keeping with the emerging community opinion regarding repetitive admin actions. He failed to engage in discussion before the deletions, disregarding these concerns and neglecting the opportunity to resolve any misunderstandings before the deletions.

Support:

1. Proposed revision, in an attempt to resolve the concerns noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 22:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. This provides more context. Carcharoth (talk) 00:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. First choice. Wizardman 02:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. With no preference vs 9.2. — Coren ^(talk) 03:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. per Carch. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. This situation should be submitted as evidence and opportunity given for analysis and commentary by MZMcBride. The ANI thread and his talk page archiving suggest this FoF is accurate, and there is discussion on the Workshop, but I cant easily assess this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Jayvdb. It appears, from what I can parse from his logs, that MZMcBride ceased deleting redirects in June 2008 following multiple complaints over time, which would indicate that at that point, for whatever reason, he took the concerns seriously. Risker (talk) 01:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Currently abstaining pending further consideration. I don't think the volume issue is the important thing here, the issue is that this is one area where MZMcBride seems to have made any substantial number of mistakes. Risker's observation could also do with further investigation. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   As far as I am aware, redirects dependent on deleted pages (i.e. broken ones) was subsequently subsumed into CSD G8, and presumably the edge case of template documentation pages has been avoided by standardising how those pages are produced and putting some template on them to keep the bots away. The case of broken redirects pointing at deleted disambiguation pages is even rarer. I am still of the opinion that all admins should, where possible, deleted associated pages when they delete the main page they are deleting. It may seem tedious and less efficient, but could well be more reliable than a bot. Carcharoth (talk) 08:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's userspace

10) MZMcBride previously had certain pages in his userspace whose content was problematic. However, he voluntarily deleted these pages several weeks ago, and has not created any new ones.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   First choice. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. They are still somewhere in the web. For me, this particular issue is still problematic. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FayssalF. The creation of such material is so rare that specifically noting the lack of similar material over the course of weeks seems unduly mitigating. --Vassyana (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Fayssal. The issue is the creation of the pages not the deletion of them.  Roger Davies ^talk
4. Per Fayssal. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Not enough detail. Carcharoth (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. He created User:MZMcBride/Going rogue after he voluntarily deleted User:MZMcBride/Socking and User:MZMcBride/Data_suppression. And the "Going rogue" page was not deleted several weeks ago. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I disagree with the assessment that all the pages were problematic. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I agree that MZMcBride's decision to delete these pages is a positive step; however, I share FayssalF's concern that there are likely to be versions of these pages elsewhere on the web now. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Abstain. "problematic" is vague, but it is better than "potentially harmful". I believe the project would have benefited from the content of these pages being better framed. But I fail to see how these pages are part of poor administrative conduct. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Jayvdb, it strikes me that this finding speaks to MZMcBride's judgment in a general sense. Risker (talk) 01:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's userspace

10.1) MZMcBride previously had certain pages in his userspace whose content was problematic. He then voluntarily deleted these pages several weeks ago after no consensus was reached at the Miscellany for deletion debate, and has not created any new ones. One page had been transferred and soft redirected by MZMcBride to MediaWiki.org where he got no objection from MediaWiki sysadmins or developers. The Arbitration Committee still considered that page problematic and potentially harmful to Wikipedia. The page was then deleted from MediaWiki.org on April 5, 2009 as an initiative from MZMcBride.

Support:

1. Accurate facts. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:52, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:36, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Equal preference. Wizardman 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Simple is often better. This clearly spells out the facts. — Coren ^(talk)
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (switching to oppose) Noting the caveat of "potentially" harmful. And technically MfD not AfD (corrected above). Links are here and here. The latter was created first and never deleted (only soft redirected). The former was deleted during its MfD, which MZMcBride closed with the comment: "Deleted by user. A few people recommended privately to delete the page. Their opinions seem reasonable." The other page Brad referred to didn't have an MfD, and the only other MfD filed on a subpage in MZMcBride's userspace was not raised at this case. Carcharoth (talk) 17:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Noting that the redirect to the mediawiki page, and the mediawiki page, were both deleted on 5 April 2009.[reply]

7. Noting Carcharoth's comments. --Vassyana (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Okay FloNight♥♥♥ 18:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I do not consider the page "User:MZMcBride/Going rogue"[3] to be potentially harmful to Wikipedia. In my personal experience, I have found it appropriate to quitely inform software engineers about probable security bugs, however software vulnerability disclosure is very much still a topic of debate within the open source community, with many who believe in full disclosure. As this page describes actions only possible by an admin account, the information itself is not harmful; admins who abuse it are harmful and should be desysoped. Some of these may be security bugs, as they allow an "admin" to perform actions they are not privileged to perform, however I cant see any evidence of that being the case. The information on that page can also be understood to explain to admins what "functionality" is actually a bug and should not be used; in many cases these have been actually done by well-meaning admins. WP:BEANS is merely essay, and it is all too often used to suppress useful discussion. At one stage Adminbots was a topic not discussed due to BEANS (dont scare the villagers; they might revolt..), and poor Quadell sinned as a consequence. I also dont see "User:MZMcBride/Socking" as determental to Wikipedia; there are valid reasons to sock, and there are valid reason to start a fresh account while scaling down usage of the old account. It is ironic that this FoF avoids mentioning which pages are being referred to here, which gives extra weight to these pages being considered harmful. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Also, the page has been recently deleted from MediaWiki.org too.[reply]
2. I disagree that the pages were problematic. In relation to the "going rogue" page, I don't think MZMcBride's intention was to do anything other than be critical of security through obscurity ("BEANS" in Wikipedia parlance). I don't think the "socking" page was anything other than an attempt at satire. Both the utility of the critique (as opposed to pursuing the matters through bugzilla, or the wikitech-l, etc) and the effectiveness of the satire can be criticised, but that's not the same as this. As for the "data suppression" page, I'm hesitant to be restricting reasonable critiques of or calls for investigation of possible misuse of advanced permissions. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Less accurate that 10.2 so opposing in favour of 10.2 below. Carcharoth (talk) 08:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I can see Jayvdb's point with respect to openness of knowledge in the case of some of these pages, although at least one of the pages involved at one point included detailed concerns about an identified individual's use of specialized tools. This comes back to judgment again: the essay on MediaWiki concerns would not likely have been as concerning if it had started out on the MediaWiki page, for example, and MZMcBride's concerns about the identified editor's use of specialized tools would best have been forwarded directly to this Committee (i.e., the group that is charged with the responsibility for assessing appropriate use of advanced tools) while the general discussion of his concerns remained in his userspace or as part of a larger discussion in Wikipedia space. Risker (talk) 01:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   The userpage about Alison doesnt fit within this FoF, as it was not taken to MfD. I consider that page to have been inappropriate, but his intentions there were honourable. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's userspace

10.2) MZMcBride created three pages in his userspace whose content was problematic. Two of these pages were debated at Miscellany for deletion, with no consensus. The first debate was terminated during the third hour with MZMcBride deleting the page. Another of these problematic userpages was deleted at the same time. The third page was created after the first two were deleted, and immediately resulted in an MfD that went for five days, during which the page had been transferred and soft redirected by MZMcBride to MediaWiki.org, where he got no objection from MediaWiki sysadmins or developers. He voluntarily deleted this page from Wikipedia and MediaWiki on April 5, 2009.

Support:

1. Submitted to give a more detailed finding which doesnt suggest that he "has not created any new ones" (he did, after the first two were deleted), and avoids deeming the content was "potentially harmful". John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Better description of what happened. Carcharoth (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Okay. All three wording are okay with me. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Risker (talk) 14:25, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Oppose the "problematic" assessment as per above. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride's BLP initiative

11) MZMcBride has commendably developed a methodology for seeking to identify articles that may contain certain types of biographies of living people (BLP) problems, and worked with another user to develop a script to carry out this task. Issues for discussion remain concerning the best means of listing and addressing the issues raised by the output of the script.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:13, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:21, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wizardman 23:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. The page is here. Any objections or improvements should be raised sooner rather than later. It should also be noted that MZMcBride has stated he is putting his work there on hold while he works to identify and tag unmarked BLPs. The most difficult problem seems to be finding people willing to do the work. Other work on BLPs includes this and this. Carcharoth (talk) 18:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

1. Oppose "commended" rulings per my usual. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. MZMcBride could be commended for a truckload of his endeavours over the years. I dont see how the article-space BLP problem identification efforts are relevant. OTOH, I think his OLDIP deletions are in part done to remove potential BLP problems, and that would be relevant, but I havent seen evidence regarding this. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's participation in this case

12) MZMcBride has responded cogently, promptly, and in detail to questions posed by the arbitrators concerning the issues in this case.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   (I have to admit this doesn't flow as well rhetorically if the result of the case winds up being a desysopping rather than an admonition....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   — Coren ^(talk) 20:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. I can support findings of fact that highlight situations where parties have modeled appropriate behaviour; the decisions of the Committee should be illustrative to more than the limited number of individuals involved in specific cases. Risker (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. On reconsideration this is something that is, sadly, rare enough that it should be noted. --Vassyana (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. That's how he should have acted, no reason to make a ruling on it. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:24, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I see your point and agree. I would have preferred to have it included in a broader Fof that mentions the need for the injunction and frames other aspects of the situation. But that said, based on my past experience with cases, I think his participation in this case has been well above average compared to past involved parties. That is the reason that I support noting it. Unfortunately the opposite is true too often with parties to our cases. Frequently, the most involved users, including admin, do not communicate "promptly". I think that he has tried to respond to us in a timely manner in order to assist us in moving the case forward. His most recent comments on the talk page are pretty harsh, so I'm not entirely comfortable with the wording as now written. I want users to be able to speak their mind. And we are going to be criticized by users that have sanctions, for sure. But if we are going to mention the positive aspects of his communication with us, than we should address the problems as well. That is the reason that I think leaving this type of comment out is usually for the best. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   True, but given that adequacy of communication is one of the issues raised in the case, I think it's worth noting. --bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Rlevse. If the "questions to the parties" section is going to be used more, then we need to consider carefully when and how to make a statement on whether the parties were co-operative (parties will co-operate to varying levels in different cases). For my part, though I'm not supporting this, I'm happy to say that many (not all) of the answers MZMcBride provided were very helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 17:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. per Rlevse and Carcharoth. Also, MZMcBride has not submitted any evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride/Evidence. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Rlevse's point makes sense, mulling it over. Wizardman 23:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I personally appreciate it but I don't see the need for it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Per Rlevse and FayssalF. --Vassyana (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. On reconsideration, I agree with Rlevse; but I cannot oppose since the proposed finding is factual. I agree it is not germane to the case, however. — Coren ^(talk) 15:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Rlevse.  Roger Davies ^talk 08:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Segregation of logs

13) (moved to 9.1)

Deletion of redirects

14) (moved to 9.2)

MZMcBride's administrator status

15) MZMcBride resigned his status as an administrator on April 6, 2009, while this arbitration case was pending.

Support:

1. Per new circumstances. See proposed principle 11 and proposed remedy 1.4 Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. So he did. — Coren ^(talk) 17:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 18:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wizardman 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. For the record: resignation announcement and rights change at meta. Carcharoth (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. bainer (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

MZMcBride strongly urged

1) MZMcBride is strongly urged:

(A) To consult with other members of the community and seek consensus before undertaking major administrative projects such as mass deletions of pages;

(B) To adhere more closely to deletion policies and the considerations outlined in this decision before deleting pages, and particularly before undertaking programs of mass deletion;

(C) To enhance his level of communication with editors affected by his administrator actions; and

(D) To use good judgment concerning the content of his userspace.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Very strongly urged. — Coren ^(talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. A must in order to have admin tools. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per FloNight and Coren. However, (A) would have to be tweaked in case remedy 1.2. passes. I am not sure if Casliber and Rlevse meant it to be an alternative to this remedy! -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   This is true; I will seek to address any required tweaking, and any cross-references and the order of the points, once it becomes clear what the main remedy is going to be. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. Whether desysopped or not this is still something he should be urged to do. Wizardman :  Chat  21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Wizardman - this does not exclude a desysop as expanded below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Wizardman.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support without prejudice to any decision about his continued status as an administrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. This is all that is needed, in my opinion. The Sarah Palin admonishment (which was more about page protection) didn't really figure on his "page deletions" radar. This case is more about mass deletions (whether done by bot or manually) and when it is appropriate, and about appropriate communications. I accept that both cases concern MZMcBride's judgment, but I think he can and will demonstrate better judgment in the future. Carcharoth (talk) 18:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. per Sam Blacketer. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Sam Blacketer. Risker (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Sam. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Considering he was admonished in the Palin case and has repeatedly ignored community concerns, this does not go far enough. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Rlevse. Additionally, the actions taken while under injunction remain a substantial concern for me. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride suspended

1.1) MZMcBride is desysopped for a period of three months. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored.

Support:

Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I see no reason to refrain from "standard" desysopping, where the tools are removed until successful appeal to the community or Committee. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comments on 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Vassyana, principle. Wizardman :  Chat  17:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Vassyana.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my comments on remedy 1. Carcharoth (talk) 18:59, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Automatic restoration would be a problem here; the adminbots need to be approved first. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. In light of his resignation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Automatic restoration, in my opinion, serves little purpose besides being punitive. I would agree to a "probationary" desysop if the return of the bit required demonstrated compliance with the other remedies; and would allow an RfA as a means to regain the bit since it demonstrates community consensus. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. yeah, I had meant something like the below and had wondered whether it needed one or two motions. I can see one is fine and have struck the above and voted below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride suspended with conditions

1.2) MZMcBride is desysopped for a period of three months. After three months, his administrator access will be automatically restored if he does not use any automated bots or scripts on his primary account during that time. During that time MZMcBride should submit non-admin bots for BAG approval and submit admin bots for BAG approval after he regains adminship.

Support:

:# First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. That is, does not use automated bots or scripts on his primary account. — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   tweaked — Rlevse • Talk • 01:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. this is what I had meant to do above. so that 1.1 can be struck. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Would it be appropriate to remove it altogether? Tiptoety ^talk 01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Not sure. i don't mind if you do but maybe better that all stays on for the time being. I will defer to others (and move this exchange to talk???) Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Per talk page.[reply]

3. Support 1 as a separate stand alone remedy, and additionally, both 1.2 and 1.3 as acceptable alternatives to each other since I would likely give him the tools back by his request if he compiles with an understanding between us and him after a period of informal comment from the Community. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Now Second choice. With conditions attached and the other remedies that I support that give him direction about his general editing and use of admin tools, I think that this is an acceptable alternative, but not my preferred choice. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Second choice, per FloNight. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. I see no reason to refrain from "standard" desysopping, where the tools are removed until successful appeal to the community or Committee. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I added a more standard desysop alternative as I have no problem with either alternative. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per my comments on 1.3 below. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Was actually thinking about this, but again, on principle. Wizardman :  Chat  23:07, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:59, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Vassyana.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I don't see this as a reasonable test; the case is about adminbots and by definition no user can run an adminbot on an account without the admin bit. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per my comments on remedy 1. Carcharoth (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   In light of his resignation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride desysopped

1.3) MZMcBride is desysopped. MZMcBride may request return of administrator access either through a RFA or by request to the Committee.

Support:

1. I have absolutely no problem with MZMcBride having admin access if he still has the support of the Community for him to have the tools. But since there have been repeated concerns raised, I think that this needs to be reconfirmed through another Community vote, or he needs to show the Committee that he understand the issues raised by following through on an agreed upon course of action acceptable to him and the Committee. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Equal first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice; while I agree that MZMcBride's judgment in using administrative tools has been legitimately questioned, I think that the suspension with conditions suggested in (1.2) does the job just as well in a less forceful way. — Coren ^(talk) 14:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't see this alternative as more forceful since MZMcBride could start a RFA and gain approval from the Community for admin tools. It is possible that he could have the tools returned soon, with the confidence of a community vote behind him if he goes this route. If he is desysop under 1.2 then he does not have that as an option. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I see the nuance as the distinction between a probationary period because of legitimate concerns that need to be addressed and removal because of loss of community trust for two reasons: (a) perception of the difference between a suspension and removal (even if it is possible that the actual result ends up being the same or even opposite) and (b) the extreme difficulty, historically, that editors who have been desysopped have to succeed an RfA bid because they have been desysopped. — Coren ^(talk) 15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. I dislike temporary desysops. Either an editor is likely to follow the basic expectations for the community trust or they are not. While I very much appreciate and respect MZMcBride's commitment to the community and his hard work as an administrator, his general disregard for community expectations and concerns cannot be ignored. The spurts of actions that were practically indistinguishable from (semi-)automated tool edits while under injunction are a deep concern for me. They may not have been against the letter of the injunction and were likely undertaken under a good-faith interpretation of the injunction. However, the actions that had the same practical appearance and effect as the injunction's target restrictions and thus I consider them to be contrary to the injunction. Regretfully, I feel that a desysop is required given these circumstances. --Vassyana (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. I have a great deal of respect for MZMcBride, and I agree with much of what Vassyana has said. If he recovers and abides by consensus, then down the road I can certainly see him having the tools back. Wizardman 13:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'll elaborate upon request. I am a firm believer that while obtaining adminship should be easier than it is, it needs to have a reactive mechanism, ergo i belive losing adminship should not be considered a death sentence for a user, though it is a serious offense. I do consider MZMcBride to be valuable in what he does, and it was not easy to vote to desysop. However, if the community creates a consensus on something, or if arbcom applies an injunction, the best response is to be cautious and avoid coming close to violating that. Skirting it looks to us is a violation of the spirit, if not of the letter. To me, it seems that there has been increasing controversy regarding this user since the Sarah Palin arbitration. What I see recently is a user who struggles to understand the effects of his actions on the community, and when confronted with opposition, we see the problems that led to this arbitration case. I am confident that if he takes a couple months to try and work better through BAG, as well as more firmly working with the stuff he does that definitely has consensus, then I could see him getting his tools back, either through RfA or here, since the issues leading to his desysop are most certainly not unrepairable. He's still a good user, and I really think a break from the tools will make him a better user in the long run. Wizardman 03:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8. Per talk page discussions about 'temporary desysop'. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:39, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Too harsh at this time, in my view, though I can understand my colleagues' arguments to the contrary. Longer comments: MZMcBride is a hard-working administrator with good technical knowledge, dedication to the project, and strong views about what is right for Wikipedia. Unfortunately, he sometimes displays the weaknesses accompanying his strengths, such as hard-edged stridency, failure to anticipate the feelings of users whom his administrator actions will affect, or sometime unwillingness to pause while a consensus is reached as to how a given situation should be resolved. Despite my prior experience with MZMcBride (including my role as the drafter of the Sarah Palin admonition), and my exasperation with some of his actions and comments, I am willing to stop just short of a suspension or desysopping at this time in this case. But the fact that several of my colleagues are reaching an opposite conclusion is also understandable, and was quite predictable from the overall record, and is perhaps an inevitable outcome of the case—which is the reason that I wrote extensive comments at the accept-or-decline stage, seeking to capture MZMcBride's attention and bring about a promise of improved behavior that would have avoided the need for arbitration. My goal then was to point out the path for MZMcBride to continue performing his valuable administrator work while making clear how he could best do so while heading off future concerns of the type that have led to this case and perhaps to this result. Since then, I have seem some enhanced sensitivity to some of the points I raised, such as the voluntary deletion of the problematic userspace pages. But the improvements likely will not be enough to dissuade a majority of the committee from voting for a harsher result than the one I favor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per my comments on remedy 1. Would also urge reconsideration from those who have supported this - the other remedies that have been proposed should be given a chance to work. If desyopping goes ahead, it will likely be a lose-lose situation. Having said that, I would urge MZMcBride to make very clear the extent to which he is prepared to co-operate with the remedies outlined here, as that is the sort of question that would likely be posed at any future RFA. In addition, even a future RFA-resysopping would not be a "get-out-of-jail-free" card, as if there are future problems after an RFA re-sysopping, another ArbCom-enforced desysopping would be unlikely to have an "RFA allowed" clause attached. Better to resolve the issues here and now. Carcharoth (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm not likely to vote to restrict MZMcBride from regaining adminship through a RFA. I would reserve this type of restriction to some one whom I think has the potential to be extremely harmful to the Community if they regained the admin tools but the Community is not aware of the problems because of privacy issues or other extreme situations where ArbCom has stepped in behind the scene. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. per Carcharoth. Given the other remedies which are tailored to prevent the problems that caused this dispute, and a bit of good faith in MZMcBride, I think this remedy is now unnecessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. In light of his resignation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Excessive. There's no indication MZMcBride has misused the tools through error or mistake in any significant way, aside from the redirects matter last June, which he appears to have learnt from anyway. The instances said to be of action against consensus really seem to be instances of action in the absence of consensus, and boldness is, after all, a part of our ethos. Remember also that only in the case of secret pages was it contested whether the pages targeted were eligible for deletion. Boldness does however require the exercise of all due care, and all administrative work requires good communication, and the matters covered in the case do show some deficits in that area (the deletion summaries issue is particularly glaring). Desysopping is an excessive response to this though. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Abstaining largely because, as at this writing, MZMcBride's administrative permissions have been removed at his request, so the proposal is moot. I will, however, outline my thoughts on the proposed remedies regarding MZMcBride's administrative status.

   MZMcBride has made it very clear, from early days, that he has a binary perception of administrative status: one is either an admin, or one is not. His perception is shared by most of the community, regardless of experience or permission level. Historically, there has been no significant support for direct mentoring or similar support of admins, nor for limiting admins to certain actions. Whilst I personally see some good reasons for changing that (irrespective of the specifics of this case), I must sadly admit that there is little sign that this lack of support is likely to change in the near future within the community, or even within the Committee.

   MZMcBride has carried out more than twice as many administrative actions as all of the Arbitration Committee members put together. While only a tiny percentage of these actions have proved controversial, the sheer volume of his activity means that the number of concerns expressed is significantly higher than experienced by most admins. These concerns largely focus on a few very specific issues: what could be called "corner cases" or grey areas where more than one policy or community standard applies, a degree of inflexibility in personal understandings of community standards, and a paucity of what I will call empathy with those who feel they (or an aspect of the project) have been adversely affected by the administrative action(s). All of these issues could be mitigated to a significant degree with a greater openness to feedback as it is received (and to stop and reconsider at that point), and seeking out other opinions in advance of carrying out large-scale activities. I note that this message has started to get through to MZMcBride, who recently took a non-admin bot through the BRFA process which, while not perfect, provides some advance feedback on the appropriateness of bot editing. I note as well that this process was not available for adminbots until late 2008, so this option for feedback was not available prior to the redirect series of admin actions. I hope that both MZMcBride (should he succeed at an RFA subsequent to this case) and other administrators will bear in mind the benefit of seeking out other viewpoints (whether BAG for bots and adminbots, other admins/editors, or a more general cross-section of the community) prior to undertaking large scale activities; and that both he and other administrators will be more willing to stop midstream and discuss concerns that arise during a series of similar actions, whether automated or not. Wikipedia is an "open" project, and it succeeds best when its editors collaborate with open sharing and open minds. Risker (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZMcBride's administrator status

1.4) The Committee takes note that MZMcBride has resigned his administrator status while this case was pending. Any request by MZMcBride for restoration of adminship privileges will require either a new request for adminship or the approval of this Committee. MZMcBride is urged to give careful consideration to the principles expressed in this decision in his future editing, and especially if he reattains adminship at a future date.

Support:

1. Proposed in light of changed circumstances, superseding the other proposed remedies in this series. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Philwelch. I will comment on other proposed revisions to some of the findings later today. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice above all of the alternatives, given the changed circumstances. — Coren ^(talk) 16:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. --Vassyana (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The ongoing events overtook the case remedies. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5.  Roger Davies ^talk 19:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman 21:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Noting that remedy 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 still apply, along with this one (1.4). In particular remedy 1 would still apply if MZMcBride regains the admin tools, and 1D applies regardless of whether he is an admin or not. If MZMcBride does submit a request for adminship at some future point, I would hope the community would apply the necessary level of scrutiny and address any questions raised by or left unanswered by this case. Carcharoth (talk) 23:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Though given that it seems to be the intention of the Committee to proceed with the case, this should be conditional on a suspension or revocation remedy not passing. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

MZMcBride directed

2) MZMcBride is directed to consult with and obtain approval from the Bot Approvals Group before using any bot to edit Wikipedia and particularly before using any bot to undertake administrator actions. Appropriate consultation is also in order before undertaking patterns of mass edits or mass deletions, even if fully automated tools technically are not employed. The relevant issues in any such discussion should include the value to Wikipedia of the particular bot task proposed and whether the bot is the best means of accomplishing that task.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Additionally, remedy 4 has been proposed below directing that all such bots must operate from distinct user accounts. — Coren ^(talk) 20:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have removed "or an equivalent community process" since BAG IS the community process. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman :  Chat  17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:54, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Care is needed with interpreting this. WP:BAG only give technical approval. Community consensus for non-obvious tasks is also needed. At some point, something needs to be written by BAG or the community to address the issue of bots that have an effect over large areas of Wikipedia, or that will run continuously for a long time (rather than a single run). The latter need crystal-clear community consensus, along with a mechanism to stop and even deflag the bot if that consensus breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 19:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Risker (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per Carcharoth, only technical matters are relevant to the Bot Approvals Group. Moreover, aside from the secret page deletions, the evidence does not indicate that MZMcBride's deletions have been other than straightforward applications of existing deletion policy. I dislike the idea that administrators should have to ask permission before taking administrative actions covered by existing policy. I think I'll propose a different remedy going to the real issues here, those of communication and so forth. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride commended and urged

3) MZMcBride and those working with him are commended for developing an innovative method to identify articles with potential BLP issues, but are strongly urged to consult and carefully consider whether the current location and nature of the listing of the output of the script represents the most appropriate means of addressing the issues raised.

Support:

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Coren ^(talk) 20:58, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree that care needs to be used when documenting problematic BLP content, including deletion logs, edit summaries, and lists or other logs of BLP articles with issues that need to be resolved. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Wizardman :  Chat  17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Risker (talk) 02:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. If there are issues with the current location and nature of "the listing of the output of the script", they should be addressed now, not left for MZMcBride and others to consider. Would be happy to support a "commended" version. Carcharoth (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I dont see evidence or workshopping to support this decision tackling article space BLP issues. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Tasks to be segregated

4) MZMcBride is directed to create user accounts distinct from his own, clearly identified as bots and clearly associated to his primary account, from which to execute any automated or semi automated task that can make edits or administrative actions. All such accounts must be approved as bots using the usual procedure, but may be reused for consecutive tasks as appropriate so long as the various task may be clearly identified in the edit summaries and logs and have been individually approved.

Support:

1. This is somewhat redundant with remedy (2) above, but is proposed distinctly rather as an alternative. Part of the difficulties caused by MZMcBride's current modus operandi is that the auditing trace of his actions are buried in thousands of entries, making it next to impossible for an uninvolved editor to examine them clearly. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   A further note is that a side effect of the bot approval process creates a record of what the automated task does an how, making it easy to determine why a group of actions have taken place and to see the rationale behind them. — Coren ^(talk) 21:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prior oppose withdrawn per comment from Dragon's flight on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. This seems well-within the letter and spirit of our bot policy and related community consensus. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Wizardman :  Chat  17:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Coren and my other comments in other proposals. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Good extension to remedy 2. Carcharoth (talk) 19:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Risker (talk) 02:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't see how this could work, unfortunately. If he gets approval to run an adminbot, he has to run it from his administrator account short of a major policy/procedure change. Or perhaps I am missing something here? Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:36, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Per comments above on finding of fact #9.1. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

MZMcBride restricted

5) MZMcBride is restricted from making edits or actions from his primary account that are either (a) automated, or (b) at a rate higher than twelve actions per minute. Edits or actions made from authorized bot accounts are not so restricted.

Support:

1. Goes hand-in-hand with remedy 4 above. — Coren ^(talk) 20:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:46, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Prior oppose withdrawn per comment from Dragon's flight on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Vassyana (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Wizardman :  Chat  17:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6. Agree that this approach will help resolve the issue long term. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Roger Davies ^talk 10:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. May be needed if some proposals are declined by BAG or not submitted. Given issues with injunctions, will also force carefully planning and documentation of any planned mass actions. This one, I could see being lifted on appeal, or after a set time (such as six months). Carcharoth (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per my comment on 4, and subject to any clarification that might be provided, or potentially rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. For two reasons: First, this is essentially moot if he is desysopped, since his high rate of actions was only on admin issues. Second, I feel this could be a slippery slope effect. For example, one could misconstrue it to banning deletions through twinkle to delete images at ifd (batch delete, presuming of course the admin is viewing the images first). I see the purpose behind this remedy but don't feel comfortable with it. Wizardman 06:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. "Twelve actions per minute" is an artificial limit, and applying it to both editing and administrative actions isnt supported by any problems of rapid editing being raised on the evidence or workshop pages. I could support this if it was applied only to administrative actions, and only as a temporary measure, either by an explicit duration or an appeal. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Yes, it is arbitrary because it is otherwise impossible to distinguish between automated processes (which I meant to forbid entirely) and very fast editing. I purposefully selected a very generous limit of 12 per minute which means one action every five seconds; no human being could possibly sustain that rate of decision making for any significant duration of time— this will not prevent MZMcBride from acting swiftly and efficiently himself, but does restrict fast automated processes that have no human input. — Coren ^(talk) 17:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   It is possible to sustain much higher rates of decision making for a long period using WP:AWB or manual approval of diffs with meta:pywikipedia. The key is that usually these editing runs are preceded with creating lists of pages that need a similar edit performed, so a large chunk of the decision making is done before the first edit. It doesnt restrict him to be thoughtful about each edit, because these tools can be told how frequently to edit, and then left unattended. Why do you think we need to restrict his editing rate in addition to his admin-action rate? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:26, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair point. For my part, am happy to leave things as they are. If MZMcBride wants to do mass manual edits at a faster rate on his main account, he can appeal this remedy at a suitable point after the case closes. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. Per Jayvdb. Risker (talk) 02:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. This would be appropriate if the issue was MZMcBride misusing the tools, or making too many errors or mistakes, but that's not the case; the issue here is communication and so forth. --bainer (talk) 08:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. Not sure - main issue initially regarding this was with injunction, but I am not so worried about this outside of the injunction. It is getting on with others and accepting responsibility that I have a problem with. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I think that regardless of what happens with the other remedies, we can safely say that most — if not all — difficulties MZMcBride has had with other editors were directly related to automated (or mass) processes. — Coren ^(talk) 18:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General

• I am not sure if Casliber and Rlevse meant remedy 1.1 and subsequently 1.2. to be an alternative to 1. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I see your point. It can be read in two ways I suspect, given that it is a behavioural guideline that should be adhered to after a 3 month suspension or not. I would support it in that case, but if within 1 it is implicit there is no suspension then I would oppose it, and I suspect this has been Rlevse's rationale. I am not as familiar with the technicalities, so I am happy to be told whether remedy 1 is exclusive of 1.2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If 1.3 or 1.2 is adopted (1.1 has been withdrawn), I will tweak 1 to apply to the changed circumstances, and in order 1 would then follow 1.3 or 1.2 in the final decision. Let's address this when we see for sure what is passing.Newyorkbrad(talk) 14:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I see no incompatibility between 1 and 1.1 - 1.3; the former sets out behavioral guidelines that may (and should) apply regardless of whether MZMcBride currently has the bit. So, for the record, I have no objection to 1 and one of the other remedies applying. — Coren ^(talk) 14:28, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • True. I considered it that way and supported both. Reading Newyorkbrad and Casliber's comments above, I suggest we attribute 6.1/2/3 to 1.1/2/3. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:49, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That seems reasonable, given that they are not meant to be construed as mutually exclusive (which numbered subpropositions usually are). — Coren ^(talk) 17:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another instance of separate vs. alternative FoF

• MZMcBride's adminbots (9), Non-segregation of logs (9.1) and MZMcBride's deletion of redirects (9.2) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are separate and presumably all three will pass. See my comments on 9.1 and 9.2, which were originally offered as 13 and 14; I moved them to more logical places within the structure and flow of the decision, but that doesn't change their status as separate proposals. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

As of 02:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC):

Passing at this time:

• Proposed principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6.1, 7, 8. 8.1, 9, 9.1, 10
• Proposed findings of fact: 1, 1.1, 2, 3, 4.1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9.1, 9.2, 11, 12
• Proposed remedies: 1, 1.3, 1.4, 2, 3, 4, 5

Not passing at this time:

• Proposed principles: 6.2, 9.2
• Proposed findings of fact: 4, 10, 10.1
• Proposed remedies: 1.1, 1.2

Tiptoety ^talk

Verified passing/not passing at this time. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I would like to note that MZMcBride has been voluntarily desyoped by a Steward at his request. Because of this it may be appropriate to allow this case to remain open a little while longer as this event may alter the outcome of the case. Tiptoety ^talk 04:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In regards to desyoping, remedy 1.4 seems to be the preferred option here. But so that I am not just doing guess work, could I get clarification on this seeing as more than one remedy dealing with desyoping is passing. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 02:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct that 1.4 passes. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

Support

1. I'm done. This is more of a placeholder as I am sure four votes will not appear until some others are satisfied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Looks like we have settled on a decision. — Coren ^(talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. The FoF Carcharoth refers to has 11 supports, I don't think a revised version is needed. Close. Wizardman 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Time to close has come. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm ready to close now. Hopefully voting on FoF 10.2 can finish in next 24 hours. Carcharoth (talk) 08:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC
7. Close. We have a complete case. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Done voting, but considering one final version of the "deletion summary" FoF, and would also like a few days for the comments and suggestions I made today to circulate and be seen. Carcharoth (talk) 19:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Finished voting - comments have been seen - just waiting for a few more votes from others. Carcharoth (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Short delay, until Monday morning, so I can look over the newest proposals to finish my voting, FloNight♥♥♥ 21:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC) OK by me to close. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. There's no reason we can't take a couple more days to hash out a few final points. A short delay to refine the decision seems to be acceptable. --Vassyana (talk) 21:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. I would like to vote. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm now done voting, but I think we need more time to discuss this, and also update our decision based on MZMcBride voluntarily being desysoped, as Tiptoety suggests above. (creating more work for us ... ;-) ) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]